1
         Transformational Leadership, Aspects of Self-concept, and Needs of
                         Followers
                   Anubhuti Sharma andVenkat R. Krishnan
               Xavier Labour Relations Institute, Jamshedpur 831001, India
                      Email: mail@rkvenkat.com
                                                2
         Transformational Leadership, Aspects of Self-concept, and Needs of
                         Followers
       ABSTRACT
          This research examines how “higher levels of motivation” could be operationalized in Burns’
       (1978) definition of transformational leadership. Two lines of argument are examined empirically. The
       first, based on Shamir (1991) suggests an explanation based on a self-concept based motivation theory,
       and the second is based on traditional need based theories. Using the survey method, a predominantly
       male sample drawn from all levels and comprising 70 pairs of leaders and followers, was studied in a
       single medium-sized manufacturing organization. Results indicate that transformational leadership is
       positively related to personal identity and unrelated to social identity. Needs were seen to be unrelated
       to transformational leadership. Therefore, some empirical support was found for Shamir (1991)
       suggesting that the process by which transformational leaders engage followers to higher levels of
       motivation and morality, involves engaging the follower’s self-concept.
       KeyWords:Transformational leadership, Self-concept, Needs of Followers.
          Burns (1978) identified transforming leadership as a process wherein one or more persons
       engage with others in such a way that the leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of
       motivation and morality. This paper attempts to operationalize this definition in part, by examining the
       process by which the “higher level of motivation” would be achieved. Shamir (1991) reviewed the
       existing literature on motivation and concluded that it had an individualistic utilitarian bias at odds
       with the concept of transformational leadership, which emphasizes transcending self-interest for the
       sake of the collective. A number of studies have confirmed that existing literature on motivation is
       inadequate to explain behavior due to over-emphasis on rational maximization of personal utility
       (Shamir, House and Arthur, 1993). Shamir (1991) further argued that an individual’s motivation to do
       a task would be enhanced to the extent that (a) job related identities are salient in the person’s self-
       concept, (b) actions required in the job are consistent, or can be performed in a manner consistent with
       the person’s self-concept and, (c) career opportunities on the job are congruent with the person’s
       possible selves.
                                                             3
             This study examines whether the transformational leader engages aspects of identity other
         than collective identity in the follower’s self-concept, and whether there exists a positive relationship
         between follower needs and transformational leadership. Further, the study makes an argument that
         the positive relationship between transformational leadership and needs is mediated by the social
         identity component in the follower’s self-concept.
         THEORYANDHYPOTHESES
             This section reviews the literature in the area of transformational leadership, self-concept and
         needs. Through a series of hypotheses, this section also makes a case for the reconciliation of the
         dichotomy between the two lines of argument in motivation literature in context of Burns (1978)
         definition of transformational leadership.
         Transformational Leadership
             Burns (1978) noted that leaders address themselves to follower’s wants, needs and other
         motivations, as well as their own, and thus serve as an independent force in changing the makeup of
         the followers’ motive base through gratifying their motives (p. 20). Since then, there have been several
         attempts to conceptualize how transformational leaders engage their followers.
             Conceptions of transformational leadership. Bass (1985) noted that transformational leaders
         motivate their followers to perform beyond expectations by transforming their beliefs and attitudes. To
         accomplish this, transformational leaders exhibit four kinds of behaviors: (a) charisma; (b)
         inspirational motivation; (c) intellectual stimulation and (d) individualized consideration (Bass and
         Avolio, 1993). Charisma could be further subdivided into attributed charisma and idealized influence
         behavior. Popper, Mayseless, and Castelnovo (2000) found significant correlation between secure
         attachment and transformational leadership. The social contagion explanation developed by Meindl
         (1990) postulated that followers with a low social identification to the organization identify with an
         emergent leader. Attribution of charisma is an outcome of the rationalization of the follower’s new
         feelings and behavior. The psychoanalytic tradition holds that the follower undergoes regression to an
                                                4
       infantile frame of mind when confronted with a leader who appears capable of resolving the intra-
       psychic problems that the follower experiences (Bryman, 1992, p. 37).
          Transformational leadership and follower outcomes. In a further assessment of Bass’ (1985)
       conceptualization of transformational leadership, Bycio, Allen and Hackett (1995) examined the
       relationship of the MLQ-1 factors in the study by Bass (1985, pp. 209-12) to three groupings of
       outcome variables. These were (a) performance and satisfaction; (b) intent to leave and (c)
       organizational commitment. It was found that with respect to performance and satisfaction,
       transformational scales had a strong positive relationship with subordinates’ extra effort; satisfaction
       with the leader and subordinate-rated leader effectiveness. With respect to intent to leave, greater
       degrees of transformational leadership were associated with reduction in the intent to leave.
          Judge and Bono (2000) also found that, controlling for transactional leadership,
       transformational leadership behavior significantly predicted subordinate satisfaction with the leader;
       subordinate organizational commitment and subordinate work motivation, confirming the findings of
       Bycio et al. (1995). Incorporating the psychological contract, these results were also confirmed in
       another study by Goodwin, Wofford, and Whittington (2001) who found support for their hypothesis
       that transformational leadership with the implicit psychological contract sub-scale included is
       positively related to performance, and also organizational commitment. In a refinement of the results
       on performance, Yammarino, Spangler and Dubinsky (1998) found empirical evidence that
       transformational leadership is positively related to the subjective performance but not associated with
       the objective performance.
          Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) offered an explanation of the process of leader influence
       over followers in terms of leader behavior implicating the self-concept of followers. Charismatic
       leadership is an interaction between leaders and followers that results in (a) making the followers’
       self-esteem contingent on the vision and mission articulated by the leader; (b) strong internalization of
       the leader’s values and goals by the followers; (c) strong personal or moral (as opposed to calculative)
       commitment to these values and goals and (d) a willingness on the part of followers to transcend their
       self-interests for the sake of the collective (team or organization). The theory proposes that the